Artnapping
Artnapping is the blackmailing of an art owner or his insurance for payment of a ransom . The “Artnappers” usually threaten to destroy the work of art .
etymology
The term artnapping is derived from kidnapping . In this form of crime, the works of art are to a certain extent kidnapped and taken hostage. The owner is then offered to “buy back” the work of art for mostly astronomical sums or, in the event of non-compliance, the destruction or damage of the work of art is threatened.
causes
The reason for the increasing art napping is probably that famous works of art are difficult to sell on the art market , so that the theft of very valuable pieces is no longer “profitable” from the point of view of criminals. Due to the increasing registration of works of art in the Art Loss Register , the works are not for sale. The Artnappers often pay off, and a famous work of art is returned to the art collector or a museum for a large ransom .
If a work of art was insured, the perpetrators sometimes try to include the insurance company and offer it to be returned against payment of a certain sum. The ransom is then usually below the insured amount, so that the insurance company would have significantly lower losses if the thieves were paid than if the full insured amount were paid out to the owner of the work of art.
Legal situation
It is questionable whether artnapping fulfills the criteria of extortion or coercion (in Austria: §§ 144 and 105 StGB).
From a legal perspective, ransom payments are highly controversial in such cases: it is argued that many works of art reappear after a long period of time in the art trade or with private individuals and that the payments made encourage criminals to continue artnapping. In addition, many museums can no longer afford the high insurance premiums, so that many works of art are no longer insured today.
On the other hand, works of art are irretrievable objects, so if they are destroyed, not only is their financial value lost, but also a cultural asset that cannot be replaced even with large sums of money. Therefore, museums might find themselves willing to pay a ransom despite all concerns.
The number of unreported cases remains open , although there is speculation about the payment of a ransom after spectacular art thefts and returns, but those responsible on the part of museums and insurance companies usually do not confirm this in order not to encourage imitators or for political reasons.
protection
Museums can protect themselves against artnapping essentially through better guarding and technical security of works of art in magazines and exhibition rooms. Since the works of art do not go on sale in these cases, the security mechanisms of the art trade, such as the art loss register, do not take effect when art napping.
Examples
- Ghent Altarpiece: In 1934 two tablets from the famous Ghent Altarpiece were stolen, presumably by Arseen Goedertier and demanded a million Belgian francs as ransom. The blackmailer returned one of the pictures as proof of the authenticity of his claim, the money was not paid, the second plaque has been lost to this day.
- Political artnapping: According to Urbanski, works of art worth a total of 400 million shillings were stolen from Irish millionaire Alfred Lane Beit in 1974 . As the price for the return, the perpetrators have asked for food deliveries for the starving population of the Congo in the amount of 8 million pounds and the release of four Irish terrorists.
literature
- Haimo Schack : Art and Law: Fine arts, architecture, design and photography in German and international law . 3. Edition. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2017, ISBN 978-3-16-155037-9 . [Rn. 482]
- Hans von Urbanski: Insurance of works of art . In: VersRdSch 1975, p. 67ff.
Web links
- Robert Durl: The Saliera as a legal case , Salzburger Nachrichten, September 9, 2003, archive